© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
ACCESS TO SUCCESS IN AMERICA: Where Are We? What Can We Do?
University of Missouri Kansas CityOctober, 2012
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
America: Two Enduring Stories
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
1. Land of Opportunity:
Work hard, and you can become anything you want to be.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2. Generational Advancement:
Through hard work, each generation of parents can assure a better life —
and better education — for their children.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Powerful narratives.
No longer true.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Within the U.S., income inequality has been rising.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Earnings among the lowest income families have declined, even amid big increases at the
top.
Lowest 20%
Second 20%
Third 20%
Fourth 20%
Top 20%
Top 5%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
-7%5%
14%25%
51%
78%
Perc
ent G
row
th in
Mea
n Fa
mily
Inc
ome
Cons
tant
Dol
lars
, 198
0-20
10
Source: The College Board, “Trends in College Pricing 2011” (New York: College Board, 2010), Figure 16A.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Chile
Mex
icoUni
ted
Stat
esTu
rkey
Israe
l
Italy
Esto
nia
Spain
Irelan
dGr
eece
Polan
dSw
itzer
land
Belgi
umCa
nada
Slove
nia
Hung
ary
Aust
riaGe
rman
yFin
land
Norw
aySw
eden
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
Gin
i Coe
ffici
ent
Note: Gini coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates total income equality and 1 indicates total income inequality.
Instead of being the most equal, the U.S. has the third highest income inequality among OECD
nations.
United States
Source: United Nations, U.N. data, http://data.un.org/DocumentData.aspx?q=gini&id=271: 2011
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
• Unemployment• Poverty • Median Earnings
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
For people of color, the past few years have brought an economic tsunami.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Real Median Annual Income2007 2011 Percent
ChangeBlack Head of Household
35,072 31,784 - 9.4%
Hispanic Head of Household
41,945 39,901 - 4.9%
White Head of Household
59,111 56,320 - 4.7%
Sentier Research, “Household Income Trends During the Recession and Economic Recovery,” 2011.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Change in Median Wealth, 2005–2009
Hispanic Households Down 66%Black Households Down 53%Asian Households Down 54%White Households Down 16%
Source: Rakesh Kochhar, Richard Fry, and Paul Taylor, “Twenty-to-One: Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics,”Pew Social & Demographic Trends, 2011.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Median Wealth of White Families
20 X that of African Americans
18 X that of Latinos
Source: Rakesh Kochhar, Richard Fry, and Paul Taylor, “Twenty-to-One: Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics,” Pew Social & Demographic Trends, 2011.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Not just wages and wealth, but mobility as well.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
U.S. intergenerational mobility was increasing until 1980, but has sharply declined since.
Source: Daniel Aaronson and Bhashkar Mazumder. Intergenerational Economic Mobility in the U.S.,1940 to 2000. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago WP 2005-12: Dec. 2005.
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 20000
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.4 0.35 0.34 0.330000000000005
0.460.58
Earn
ings
Ela
stici
ty
The falling elasticity meant increased economic mobility until 1980. Since then, the elasticity has risen, and mobility has slowed.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Now, instead of being the “land of opportunity,” the U.S. has one of lowest rates
of intergenerational mobility.
United Kingdom
United States
France Germany Sweden Canada Finland Norway Denmark0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5 0.470.410.320000000000
005 0.270.19 0.18 0.17 0.15
Earn
ings
Ela
stici
ty
Cross-country examples of the link between father and son wages
Source: Tom Hertz, “Understanding Mobility in America” (Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress, 2006).
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
At the macro level, better and more equal education is not the
only answer.
But at the individual level, it really is.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Grads Earn More
High school
diploma/GED
Some col-lege
Asso-ciate's degree
Bachelor's degree
Master's degree
Profes-sional degree
Ph.D.$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$21,569 $27,361
$32,602
$42,783
$53,716
$79,977 $73,575
Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment (2006-08)
Med
ian
annu
al e
arni
ngs
for a
ll in
divi
d-ua
ls
Julian and Kominski, “Education and Synthetic Work-Life Earnings Estimates,” U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.
Note: Data include full-time, year-round workers, those working less than full-time year-round, and those who did not work.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
College Grads Less Likely to be Unemployed
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table A-4, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04htm
Less than high school diploma
High school grad-uate
Some college or associate's degree
Bachelor's degree or higher
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
14.3%
9.6%8.2%
4.3%
Unemployment Rate (August 2011)
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
They also stand out on the other things we value.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College graduates more likely to vote
Less than high school
High school/GED
Some college/asso-ciate's degree
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
39%
55%
68%77%
83%
Voting Behavior by Educational Attainment (November 2008)
U.S. Census Bureau, “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008,” May 2010Note: Data include both those who are and are not registered to vote.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Less than high school
High school Some college or associate's degree
Bachelor's degree or higher
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
9%19%
31%
43%
College graduates more likely to volunteer
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Volunteering in the United States 2009” (2010)
Note: Data represent percentage of total population that reported volunteering from September 2008 to September 2009
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Grads of all races far more likely to be in “Very Good” or “Excellent” Health
Black Latino American Indian White0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
27.3
15.9
29.4 30.6
56.4 59 59.2
73.3
High School Dropout College Graduate
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Commission for a Healthier America, 2009
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
High school or less Some college Bachelor's degree Advanced degree0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
37%45%
54%60%
College Grads Even Have Better Mental Health
Perc
enta
ge o
f res
pond
ents
repo
rting
them
selv
es to
be
in
exce
llent
men
tal h
ealth
Gallup, “Strong Relationship Between Income and Mental Health” (2007)
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What schools and colleges do, in other words, is hugely important to
our economy, our democracy, and our society.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So, how are we doing?
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Over past 30 years, we’ve made a lot of progress on the
access side.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Immediate College-Going Up
NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-1) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A-21-1).Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high school
19721974
19761978
19801982
19841986
19881990
19921994
19961998
20002002
20042006
20080%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Perc
enta
ge o
f Hig
h Sc
hool
Gra
duat
es
Enro
lled
in C
olle
ge th
e Fa
ll A
fter
G
radu
ation
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College-going is up for all groups.
NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-3) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A-21-2).
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Immediate College-Going Increasing for All Racial/Ethnic Groups: 1972 to 2009
Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high schoolNCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-3) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A-21-2).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
African American Latino White
Perc
enta
ge o
f Hig
h Sc
hool
Gra
duat
es E
nrol
led
in
Colle
ge th
e Fa
ll Aft
er G
radu
ation
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College-Going Generally Increasing for All Income Groups
NCES, The Condition of Education 2010 (Table A-20-1) and The Condition of Education 2011 (Table A-21-1).
19721974
19761978
19801982
19841986
19881990
19921994
19961998
20002002
20042006
20080%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Lower Income Higher Income
Perc
enta
ge o
f Hig
h Sc
hool
Gra
duat
es E
nrol
led
in
Colle
ge th
e Fa
ll Aft
er G
radu
ation
Note: Percent of high school completers who were enrolled in college the October after completing high school
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But though college-going up for students of color, gains among whites are
often larger…
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And though college going up for low-income
students…
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But access isn’t the only issue:
There’s a question of access to what…
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
1/5 of black and Hispanic students and 2/5 of Pell recipients begin at for-profit colleges
Non-Pell recipient
Pell recipient
American Indian
Hispanic
Black
White
Asian
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
15
42
12
18
21
9
7
24
25
46
45
40
35
34
39
21
29
27
26
37
41
20
9
10
9
12
17
17
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
For Profit Public 2-Year Public 4-Year Private 4-Year OtherEd Trust analysis of IPEDS Fall enrollment, Fall 2010 (by race) and IPEDS Student Financial Aid survey, 2009-10 (by Pell recipient status).
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Ed Trust analysis of IPEDS, 12-Month Enrollment Survey, 12-month headcount enrollment, 2009-10; Majority staff calculation of data provided by U.S. Department of Education, 2008-09 in “Emerging Risk?: An Overview of Growth, Spending, Student Debt and Unanswered Questions in For-Profit Higher Education.” Senate HELP Committee. 24 June 2010; and Ed Trust analysis of FY 2009 data in “Institutional Default Rate Comparison of FY 2007, 2008, and 2009 Cohort Default Rates.”
Access to what?
For-profit college companies 13% of enrollments 24% of Pell Grants and
federal student loan dollars 48% of federal student
loan defaults
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And what about graduation?
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Black and Latino Freshmen Complete College at Lower Rates Than Other Students
White Black Latino Asian American Indian0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
62%
40%50%
69%
39%Gra
duati
on R
ates
(%) Overall rate: 58%
6 -year bachelor’s completion rates for first-time, full-time freshmen,Fall 2004 cohort at 4-year institutions
NCES (March 2012). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2010; Graduation Rates, 2004 and 2007 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2010.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST41
White Black Latino Asian American Indian
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
25%15% 20% 27% 20%
Gra
duati
on R
ates
(%)
6 -year completion rates (associate degrees and certificates) for first-time, full-time freshmen,
Fall 2004 cohort at public two-year institutions
Overall rate: 22.5%
Graduation rates at public community colleges
NCES (March 2012). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2010; Graduation Rates, 2004 and 2007 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2010.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Chance of attaining a bachelor’s degree
within six years, among students who
begin at community college?
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST43
Series10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
12%
Bach
elor
’s A
ttai
nmen
t Rat
e (%
)
Only 12 percent.
Percent of students who started at a community college in 2003 and earned a BA degree by 2009
Persistence and Attainment of 2003–04 Beginning Postsecondary Students: After 6 Years First Look, December 2010.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Add it all up…
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Different groups of young Americans obtain degrees at
very different rates.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Bachelor’s attainment rates for whites are twice as high as blacks and three times as high as Hispanics
NCES, Condition of Education 2010 and U.S. Census Bureau, Educational Attainment in the United States: 2011.
White African American Latino
39%
20%13%
Bachelor’s degree attainment of young adults (25-29 year olds), 2011
2x 3x
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And gaps between groups have grown over time.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Bachelor’s attainment rates for young people from high income families are more than 7 times
those from low-income families
Postsecondary Education Opportunity, “Bachelor’s Degree Attainment by Age 24 by Family Income Quartiles, 1970 to 2010.”
20100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
10.66%
79%
Lowest Income Quartile Highest Income Quartile
Bach
elor
’s D
egre
e att
ainm
ent b
y Ag
e 24
7x
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
These rates threaten health of our democracy.
But even for those who don’t care much about that, they are particularly worrisome, given which groups are growing…and which
aren’t.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Changing demographics demand greater focus on underrepresented populations.
-5,516
2,312
31,337
4,431669
-9%
15%
137%
96%
50%
Projected Popula-tion Growth, Ages 20-24, 2010-2050
Note: Projected Population Growth, Ages 0-24, 2010-2050 Source: National Population Projections, U.S. Census Bureau. Released 2008; NCHEMS ,Adding It Up, 2007
Population Increase, Ages 0-24, (in thousands)
Percentage Increase, Ages 0-24,
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Not surprisingly, our international lead is slipping away
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Cana
daIsr
ael
Japa
nUn
ited
Stat
esNe
w Ze
aland
Kore
aFin
land
Austr
alia
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mNo
rway
Esto
nia
Irelan
dSw
itzer
land
Luxe
mbo
urg
Denm
ark
Belgi
umSw
eden
Neth
erlan
dsIce
land
OECD
aver
age
Spain
Fran
ceGe
rman
yCh
ileGr
eece
Slove
nia
Polan
dHu
ngar
yAu
stria
Mex
icoSlo
vak R
epub
licCz
ech
Repu
blic
Portu
gal
Italy
Turk
ey
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentage of residents aged 25-64 with a postsecondary degree
United States
OECD Average
Note: Adults with a postsecondary degree include those who have completed either a tertiary-type B program (programs that last for at least two years, are skill-based, and prepare students for direct entry into the labor market) or a tertiary-type A program (programs that last at least three, but usually four, years, are largely theory-based, and provide qualifications for entry into highly-skilled professions or advanced research programs)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance 2011 (2011)
We’re relatively strong in educational attainment
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Kore
aCa
nada
Japa
nIre
land
Norw
ayNe
w Ze
aland
Unite
d Ki
ngdo
mAu
strali
aDe
nmar
kLu
xem
bour
gFr
ance
Israe
lBe
lgium
Swed
enUn
ited
Stat
esNe
ther
lands
Switz
erlan
dFin
land
Spain
OECD
aver
age
Esto
nia
Icelan
dPo
land
Chile
Slove
nia
Gree
ceGe
rman
yHu
ngar
yPo
rtuga
lAu
stria
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Czec
h Re
publ
icM
exico Italy
Turk
ey
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Percentage of residents aged 25-34 with a postsecondary degree
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance 2011 (2011)
Note: Adults with a postsecondary degree include those who have completed either a tertiary-type B program (programs that last for at least two years, are skill-based, and prepare students for direct entry into the labor market) or a tertiary-type A program (programs that last at least three, but usually four, years, are largely theory-based, and provide qualifications for entry into highly-skilled professions or advanced research programs)
Our world standing drops to 15th for younger workers
United StatesOECD Average
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Kore
aPo
land
Fran
ceIre
land
Denm
ark
Luxe
mbo
urg
Chile
Norw
aySw
eden
Spain
Belgi
umPo
rtuga
lCa
nada
Japa
nUn
ited
King
dom
Austr
alia
Slove
nia
OECD
aver
age
New
Zeala
ndNe
ther
lands
Italy
Switz
erlan
dGr
eece
Hung
ary
Slova
k Rep
ublic
Turk
eyM
exico
Icelan
dCz
ech
Repu
blic
Austr
iaFin
land
Unite
d St
ates
Germ
any
Esto
nia
Israe
l0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Difference in percentage of residents aged 45-54 and those aged 25-34 with a postsecondary degree
Note: Adults with a postsecondary degree include those who have completed either a tertiary-type B program (programs that last for at least two years, are skill-based, and prepare students for direct entry into the labor market) or a tertiary-type A program (programs that last at least three, but usually four, years, are largely theory-based, and provide qualifications for entry into highly-skilled professions or advanced research programs)
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Education at a Glance 2011 (2011)
We’re near the bottom in intergenerational progress
OECD Average
United States
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
WHAT’S GOING ON?
Many in higher education would like to believe that these patterns are mostly a function of lousy high schools and stingy
federal and state policymakers.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
They are not all wrong.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Low Income and Minority Students Continue to be Clustered in Schools
where we spend less…
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Funding Gaps Between States
GapHigh-Poverty versus Low-Poverty States
–$2,278per student
High-Minority versus Low-Minority States
–$2,330per student
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Funding Gaps Within States: National inequities in state and local revenue per student
GapHigh-Poverty versus Low-Poverty Districts
–$773 per student
High-Minority versus Low-Minority Districts
–$1,122 per student
Source: Education Trust analyses of U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau data for the 2005-06 school year.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
…expect less
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source: Prospects (ABT Associates, 1993), in “Prospects: Final Report on Student Outcomes”, PES, DOE, 1997.
Students in poor schools receive As for work that would earn Cs in affluent schools.
87
35
56
34 41
22 21
11
0
100
Per
cent
ile -
CT
BS
4
A B C DGrades
Seventh-Grade Math
Low-poverty schools High-poverty schools
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Overall Enrollment Gifted and Talented En-rollment
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
19%10%
25%
16%
49%
62%
5% 10%
AsianWhiteLatinoAfrican American
Perc
enta
ge o
f stu
dent
s
Students of color are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs.
Source: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
…teach them less
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
African American Latino White Asian0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
35%
68%63%
94%
Perc
enta
ge o
f stu
dent
s who
wer
e in
the
top
two
quin
-til
es o
f mat
h pe
rfor
man
ce in
fift
h gr
ade
and
in a
lgeb
ra
in e
ight
h gr
ade
Source: NCES, “Eighth-Grade Algebra: Findings from the Eighth-Grade Round of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K)” (2010).
Even African-American students with high math performance in fifth grade are unlikely
to be placed in algebra in eighth grade
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Students of color are less likely to attend high schools that offer physics.
020406080
100
40
66
Pe
rce
nt
of
sch
oo
ls o
ffe
rin
g P
hy
sics
Source: U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, Civil Rights Data Collection, March 2012
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Students of color are less likely to attend high schools that offer calculus.
Schools with the Most Black and Latino Students
Schools with the Fewest Black and Latino Students
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
29%
55%
Source: U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights , Civil Rights Data Collection
Percent of Schools Offering Calculus
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
…and assign them our least qualified teachers.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Core classes in high-poverty and high-minority secondary schools are more likely to be taught by out-of-field teachers
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
41%
30%
17% 16%
Perc
enta
ge o
f Cla
sses
Tau
ght b
y Te
ache
rs
With
Nei
ther
Cer
tifica
tion
nor M
ajor
The Education Trust, Core Problems: Out-of-Field Teaching Persists in Key Academic Courses and High-Poverty Schools, (2008)
Note: Data are for secondary-level core academic classes (Math, Science, Social Studies, English) across United States.High-poverty ≥75% of students eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. Low-poverty school ≤15% of students eligible. High-minority ≥ 75% students non-white. Low-minority ≤ 10% students non-white.
High Poverty
Low Poverty
High Minority
Low Minority
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Students at high-minority schools are more likely to be taught by novice teachers
Low Minority High Minority0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
13%
22%
Perc
enta
ge o
f Nov
ice
Teac
hers
Analysis of 2003-2004 Schools and Staffing Survey data by Richard Ingersoll, University of Pennsylvania (2007)
Note: Novice teachers are those with three years or fewer experience. High-minority ≥ 75% students non-white. Low-minority ≤ 10% students non-white.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Tennessee: High-poverty/high-minority schools have fewer of the “most effective” teachers and more “least effective”
teachers.
17.6%
21.3%
23.8%
16%
0
5
10
15
20
25
High-poverty/high-minority schools
Low-poverty/low-minority schools
Per
cen
t o
f Te
ach
ers
Most Effective Teachers
Least Effective Teachers
Source: Tennessee Department of Education 2007. “Tennessee’s Most Effective Teachers: Are they assigned to the schools that need them most?” http://tennessee.gov/education/nclb/doc/TeacherEffectiveness2007_03.pdf.
Note: High poverty/high minority means at least 75 percent of students qualify for FRPL and at least 75 percent are minority.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
A low-income student is 66% more likely to have a low value-added teacher.
Los Angeles: LOW-INCOME STUDENTS LESS LIKELY TO HAVE HIGH VALUE-ADDED TEACHERS
A low-income student is more than twice as likely to have a low value-added teacher for ELA
In math, a student from a relatively more affluent background is 39% more likely to get a high value-added math teacher.
ELA MATHA student from a relatively more affluent background is 62% more likely to get a high value-added ELA teacher.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
4th Grade Reading:Record Performance with Gap Narrowing
1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
9 Year Olds – NAEP Reading
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress, NCES*Denotes previous assessment format
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
4th Grade Math:Record Performance with Gap Narrowing
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
9 Year Olds – NAEP Math
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress, NCES*Denotes previous assessment format
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Achievement flat in reading
1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
285 286 285289 290 290 290 288 288 288
283 286
17 Year Olds Overall-NAEP
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress* Denotes previous assessment format
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Achievement flat in math
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
304300 298
302 305 307 306 307 308 305 306
17 Year Olds Overall-NAEP
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress* Denotes previous assessment format
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
12th Grade Reading: No Progress, Gaps Wider than 1988
1971* 1975* 1980* 1984* 1988* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
17 Year Olds – NAEP Reading
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress, NCES*Denotes previous assessment format
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
12 Grade Math: Results Mostly FlatGaps Same or Widening
1973* 1978* 1982* 1986* 1990* 1992* 1994* 1996* 1999* 2004 2008240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
17 Year Olds – NAEP Math
African American Latino White
Aver
age
Scal
e Sc
ore
NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress, NCES*Denotes previous assessment format
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So, too, are misguided government aid policies
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College costs have increased at 4.5 times the rate of inflation
College Tuition and Fees
Medical Care
Median Family Income
Consumer Price Index
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
538%
288%
146% 118%
Perc
ent G
row
th R
ate
Curr
ent D
olla
rs, 1
982-
2007
The Education Trust, Lifting the Fog on Inequitable Financial Aid Policies, 2011.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST84
Federal Pell Grants have failed to keep pace with rising college costs
Public 2-Year Public 4-Year Private 4-Year0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100% 99%
77%
36%
62%
36%
15%
1979-80 2010-11Source: American Council on Education (2007). “ Status Report on the Pell Grant Program, 2007” and CRS, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher Education Act: Background, Recent Changes, and Current Legislative Issues, 2011.
Total Cost of Attendance Covered by Maximum Pell Grant Award
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Why? Not because we’re not spending a lot more on student
aid.But, rather, because we’ve changed
who gets those dollars.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST86
Source: Trends in Student Aid 2010, The College Board
61% of savings from tuition tax credits go to middle- and upper-income families
39%
61%
Distribution of Tax Credit Savings by Adjusted Gross Income
Low-income ($0-49,999)
Middle and upper-income ($50,000+)
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST87
Source: Trends in Student Aid 2010, The College Board
91% of savings from tuition tax deductions go to middle- and upper-income families
8%
91%
Distribution of Tax Deduction Savings by Adjusted Gross Income
Low-income ($0-49,999)
Middle and upper-income ($50,000+)
Note: Percentages may not add to 100% because of rounding.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Pattern is the same at state level, even in tough times.
Source: Trends in Student Aid 2010, The College Board
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST89
Change in Distribution of State Grants Based on Need
Source: NASSGAP Report 2008-09: Undergraduate Grant Aid in Constant 2008-09 Dollars:1998-99 through 2008-09 (in millions of dollars).
72.1%
27.9%
2008-09
Need-Based
Non-Need-Based
81.5%
18.5%
1998-99
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Big Effects, too, from State Disinvestment in Public Higher Education.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So yes, government policy is part of the problem, too.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST92
But colleges and universities are not
unimportant actors in this drama of shrinking opportunity, either.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
For one thing, the shifts away from poor students in institutional aid money are MORE PRONOUNCED than the shifts in government aid.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In 2007, four-year public and private nonprofit colleges
spent nearly $15 billion on grant aid.
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But, they spent a lot of aid on students who didn’t need it.
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Public 4-year colleges used to spend more than twice as much on needy students, but now spend about the same as on wealthy students
1995 2007$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$437
$744
$179
$695
Lowest income quintile Highest income quintile
Insti
tutio
nal G
rant
Aid
at P
ublic
4-Y
ear I
nstit
ution
s,
1995
-200
7 (in
mill
ions
)
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:96 and NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Private nonprofit 4-year colleges used to spend about the same amount on low- and high-income students, but now spend twice as much on
wealthy students
1995 2007$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$919
$1,478
$887
$2,673
Lowest income quintile Highest income quintile
Insti
tutio
nal G
rant
Aid
at P
rivat
e N
FP
4-Ye
ar In
stitu
tions
, 199
5-20
07 (m
illio
ns)
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS: 96 and NPSAS:08 using PowerStats. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
© 2011 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The result? Low-income students must devote an amount equivalent to 72% of their family
income towards college costsFamily Income Average
IncomeCost of
Attendance
Expected Family
Contribution (EFC)
Average Grant Aid
Unmet Need After EFC and
Grant Aid
% of Income Required to Pay for College After
Grant Aid
$0-30,200 $17,011 $22,007 $951 $9,704 $11,352 72%
$30,201-54,000 $42,661 $23,229 $4,043 $7,694 $11,493 36%
$54,001-80,400 $67,844 $23,640 $10,224 $5,352 $8,064 27%
$80,401-115,400 $97,594 $25,050 $18,158 $4,554 $2,339 21%
$115,401+ $173,474 $27,689 $37,821 $3,822 $-13,953 14%
Education Trust analysis of NPSAS:08 using PowerStats, http://nces.ed.gov/datalab/. Results based on full-time, full-year, one-institution dependent undergraduates
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So it’s not all about the students or about government. What colleges do is important in who comes…and
who doesn’t.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Moreover, what colleges do also turns out to be very important in
whether students graduate or not.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Current College Completion Rates:4-Year Colleges
Fewer than 4 in 10 (38%) entering freshmen obtain a bachelor’s degree within 4 years
Within six years of entry, that proportion rises to just under 6 in 10 (58%)
If you go beyond IPEDS, and look at graduation from ANY institution, number grows to about two-thirds.
NCES (March 2012). First Look: Enrollment in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2009; Graduation Rates, 2003 and 2006 Cohorts; and Financial Statistics Fiscal Year 2009. Ed Trust analysis of BPS:09.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But graduation rates vary widely across the nation’s postsecondary institutions
0-5 5.1-10
10.1-15
15.1-20
20.1-25
25.1-30
30.1-35
35.1-40
40.1-45
45.1-50
50.1-55
55.1-60
60.1-65
65.1-70
70.1-75
75.1-80
80.1-85
85.1-90
90.1-95
95.1-100
0
50
100
150
200
250
14
5377 70
102 115139
181151
190152
168147 135
89 8451 54
38 30
Distribution of six-year graduation rates for first-time, full-time freshmen at four-year institutions
Graduation Rate
Num
ber o
f Ins
tituti
ons
Ed Trust analysis of College Results Online dataset 2010.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Some of these differences are clearly attributable to differences in
student preparation and/or institutional mission.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Indeed, with enough data on both institutions and students, we can find a way to “explain” more than 70% of the variance
among institutions.
Ed Trust analysis of College Results Online dataset 2010.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But…when you dig underneath the averages, one thing is very
clear:
Some colleges are far more successful than their students’
“stats” would suggest.
Ed Trust analysis of College Results Online dataset 2009.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
EdTrust experience:“Our graduation rates are about
the same as other institutions that serve similar students.”
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Results Onlinewww.collegeresults.org
College Results Online 2010.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
So, what do you learn?Some institutions that have same
mission, same focus and serve essentially same students…get
far better results.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST109
Research InstitutionsSimilar Students, Different Results
MedianSAT Size % Pell % URM
Overall Grad Rate
URM Grad Rate
Penn StateUniversity
1,200 35,702 15.0% 7.4% 84.0% 69.9%
Indiana University
1,120 28,768 16.0% 6.9% 71.9% 53.5%
Purdue University
1,135 31,008 17.7% 6.8% 69.1% 52.3%
University of Minnesota
1,165 28,654 19.9% 7.5% 63.4% 43.8%
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST110
Research InstitutionsSimilar Students, Different Results
MedianSAT Size % Pell % URM
Overall Grad Rate
URM Grad Rate
Florida State University
1,160 28,874 26% 23% 68.7% 69.9%
University of Arizona
1,110 25,867 23% 26% 56% 44%
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST111
Masters Institutions – LargeSimilar Students, Different Results
MedianSAT Size % Pell
Overall Graduation
Rate
University of Northern Iowa
1,085 9,946 23.8% 65.2%
Montclair State 1,015 10,908 26.5% 61.2%
EasternIllinois
1,010 9,798 23.7% 60.3%
University of Wisconsin Whitewater
1,030 8,690 20.3% 53.1%
Tennessee Technological University
1,045 7,014 29.8% 43.5%
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST112
Historically Black CollegesSimilar Students, Different Results
MedianSAT Size % Pell
Overall Graduation
Rate
Elizabeth City 845 2,423 69.9% 50.7%
Delaware State 835 3,057 47.8% 37.3%
University of ArkansasPine Bluff
775 2,768 73.5% 32.9%
Norfolk State 900 4,798 54.5% 30.8%
Coppin State N/A 2,800 72.6% 18.9%
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Some making fast progress in improving success for students of
color, some have closed gaps entirely.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Biggest Gainers in Success for Latino Students: Public Colleges and Universities
Advancing to Completion, 2012, The Education Trust.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Biggest Gainers in Success for Black Students: Public Colleges and Universities
Advancing to Completion, 2012, The Education Trust.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Universities with No Latino/White Graduation Rate Gaps
Advancing to Completion, 2012, The Education Trust.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Universities with No Black/White Graduation Rate Gaps
Advancing to Completion, 2012, The Education Trust.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST118
Bottom Line:
So yes, we have to keep working to improve our high schools;
And yes, government has to do its part; But we’ve got to focus on changing what our
colleges do, too.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What do available data tell us about UMKC?
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
UMKC is 14th in its peer group for 6-year grad rates
Source: College Results, 2010
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Source:
Similar schools to UMKCget different results
INSTITUTION6-YEAR GRAD RATE
MEDIAN SAT
% PELL
% URM SIZE CARNEGIE CLASS
1. Rowan University 70.0% 1,065 26% 16% 8,778 Master’s
3. SUNY College at New Paltz 67.0% 1,115 27% 14% 6,093 Master’s
6. Richard Stockton College of NJ 64.0% 1,055 33% 15% 6,316 Master’s
7. George Mason University 63.4% 1,140 22% 17% 16,693 Research
14. Univ. Missouri – Kansas City 43.4% 1,125 34% 20% 7,303 Research
Source: College Results, 2010
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
UMKC loses more students right from the start
INSTITUTION 1st YEAR RETENTION
4-YEAR GRAD RATE
5-YEAR GRAD RATE
6-YEAR GRAD RATE
TRANSFER OUT RATE
1. Rowan University 82% 43.8% 65.4% 70.0% 18.5%
3. SUNY College at New Paltz 88% 42.8% 63.3% 67.0% 23.9%
6. Richard Stockton College of NJ 81% 40.4% 59.6% 64.0% 22.8%
7. George Mason University 85% 39.3% 58.2% 63.4% 20.7%
14. Univ. of Missouri - Kansas City 74% 17.7% 31.4% 43.4% N/A
Source: College Results, 2010
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Which students are UKMC losing?
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Averages can mask wide gaps in graduation rates between groups of students at UMKC
White Black Latino Asian American Indian
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
46%
28% 43%
67%
25%
Six-
Year
Gra
duati
on R
ates
Overall rate: 43%
Source: College Results, 2010
6 -year bachelor’s completion rates for first-time, full-time freshmen,Fall 2004 cohort at 4-year institutions
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But those averages can still mask gaps within student groups
White Black Latino Asian0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
39%
28%
35%
63%
51%
28%
50%
71%
Male Female
Six-
Year
Gra
duati
on R
ates
Overall rate: 43%
Source: College Results, 2010
6 -year bachelor’s completion rates for first-time, full-time freshmen,Fall 2004 cohort at 4-year institutions
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Fortunately, UMKC—along with other campuses in the system--is a part of the
national Access to Success Initiative…
which has pledged to cut in half the gaps in access and success for low-income and
minority students by 2015.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The University of Missouri System
Has made great strides in access
• Enrolling more Pell freshmen and transfers,
and narrowing gaps
• Enrolling more URM freshmen and transfers, and maintains no gaps
But still needs more work on success
• Large and stagnant gap in Pell graduation rates vs. non-Pell
• Large and growing gap in URM graduation rates
vs. non-URM
Source: Education Trust analysis of the Access to Success dataset.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Similarly, UMKC has nearly closed the access gap for low-income and minority students
From 2005-2006 to 2009-2010Low-Income Students
Full-Time Freshmen
Transfer-In Students
• % enrollment of low-income students
• Gap with % low-income students among high school grads
Gap almost cut in 1/2
Gap almost cut in 1/2
Minority Students
• % enrollment of URM students
• Gap with % URM students among high school grads Gap unchanged
& stays closed
Gap stays closed
Source: Education Trust analysis of the Access to Success dataset.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And first-year retention rates have also improved for these groups of students
2005 2006 2007 2008 200950
55
60
65
70
75
80
69
64
70
64
69
53
64
Pell Freshmen Pell Transfers URM Freshmen URM Transfers
University of Missouri – Kansas CityFirst-Year Retention Rates Over Time
Source: Education Trust analysis of the Access to Success dataset.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
However, success rates have remained stagnant or declined
2005 2008 2009 201020
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
36 34
49
49
38
30
42 44
Pell Freshmen Pell Transfers URM Freshmen URM Transfers
University of Missouri – Kansas CityGraduation Rates Over Time
Source: Education Trust analysis of the Access to Success dataset.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And, graduation-rate gaps for Pell and URM freshmen have widened over time
2005 2010-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
36% 34%
45% 49%
Pell Freshmen Non-Pell Freshmen
2005 20100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
38%30%
44%50%
URM Freshmen Non-URM Freshmen
+9 +15+6
+20
Gap has more than
tripled for URM freshmen
Gap has increased 67% for Pell freshmen
Source: Education Trust analysis of the Access to Success dataset.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Success gaps have also widened for transfer students over time
2005 20100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
49% 49%44%
50%
Pell Transfer Non-Pell Transfer
2005 20100%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
42%44%46%
51%
URM Transfer Non-URM Transfer
-5+1
+4 +7
Gap has nearly doubled for URM transfers
Gap increases for Pell transfers
Source: Education Trust analysis of the Access to Success dataset.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What can we learn from the high performers?
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
1. Their leaders make sure student success is a campus-
wide priority.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Improving student success isn’t all—or even mostly—about
programs.It’s about institutional culture that
values success and that accepts responsibility.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Successful leaders honor and tap into institutional culture to privilege student success
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The Education Trust, Access to Success database.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
How did President Steve Weber do it?
He didn’t. The campus community did. But HE made it about
excellence. And HE approached the faculty as problem-solvers.
The Education Trust, interview with President Weber.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In fact, successful leaders consistently treat faculty as
problem solvers, not as problems to be solved.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
2. They look at their data…and act.
Use of data to spot problems and frame action is pervasive.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Successful institutions don’t just aim at the final goal—graduation—they concentrate on each step
along the way, especially the early ones.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Elizabeth City State Attendance mandatory. Faculty members
monitor; call when absent. Faculty advisors track absences, mid-term
grades. Expected to meet with students in trouble.
Deans, Provost monitor the data—and ACT when involves one faculty member.
Everybody on campus assumes responsibility for acting on warning signs.
142???
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
But the ACT part is really important.
Just having data doesn’t accomplish anything. Completion is about
creating accountability for acting on those data.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Supported by Institutional ResearchChief Academic Officer convenes the group and participates
Core Services: admissions, registration,
financial aid, career services, housing, health center, and
withdrawal services
Academic Programs: undergraduate studies, honors
program, undergraduate research, library services, and
fellowships
Support Programs: orientation, advising and
coaching, tutoring and study skills courses, and special programs for underserved
populations
Student Representation: Student government
representative. It is important to have this group because it helps student buy-in and can bring in additional funds for
programs
Cross-Campus Success Team:
A group of approximately 20
professionals from these areas convenes weekly to talk about
data and the students within the data. The
group makes detailed action plans with
specific tasks, responsible parties,
and concrete deadlines
Florida State University’s Cross-Campus Success Team
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Understand student pathways
FSU developed a series of 93 action steps tied to every month of the academic calendar.
145
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
146
Month Timeframe Action Responsibility
January By end of January
Emails to students with 75 attempted hours who have not been accepted into a major
Individual Responsible
January Ongoing Update department Degree Audit reports Individual Responsible
January Ongoing Individual contact with students who have been placed on probation
Academic Section
January Ongoing Individual contact with students who have been placed on warning
Academic Section
February 1st week Offer Workshop: Students Taking Exploratory Paths to Success
Advising First
February 1st week in the month
Email to all F coded students w/100+ hours inquiring about graduation plans; email to all H coded students w/100+ hours inquiring about finishing/graduation plans
Individual Responsible
February 6th week of term
New transfer—How are you doing— deadlines
Individual Responsible
FSU’s Retention “Action Steps”
Source: Florida State University
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Connect with campus change agents
FSU formed a cross-campus retention team that met weekly “to go over, not the data, but
the students within the data.”
Larry Abele, former Provost at Florida State University
147
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
3. They create clear pathways to success.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
149
FLORIDA STATE ACADEMIC MAP
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
4. They take on Introductory and Developmental Classes
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Drop-Failure-Withdrawal RatesMathematics: 2000
• Georgia State U 45%• Louisiana State U 36%• Rio CC 41%• U of Alabama 60%• U of Missouri-SL 50%• UNC-Greensboro 77%• UNC-Chapel Hill 19%• Wayne State U 61%
151National Center for Academic Transformation.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Drop-Failure-Withdrawal RatesOther Disciplines: 2000
• Calhoun CC Statistics 35%• Chattanooga State Psychology 37%• Drexel U Computing 51%• IUPUI Sociology 39%• SW MN State U Biology 37%• Tallahassee CC English Comp 46%• U of Iowa Chemistry 25%• U of New Mexico Psychology 39%• U of S Maine Psychology 28%• UNC-Greensboro Statistics 70%
152National Center for Academic Transformation.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Of course, some of this may be about preparation. But clearly not
all…Course Redesign
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Doctoral/Research UniversitiesSimilar Students, Different Results
MedianSAT Size % Pell % URM
Overall Grad Rate
URM Grad Rate
Ohio University
1,065 16,465 28.5% 5.3% 70.9% 58.7%
University of Alabama
1,065 16,405 24.1% 13.7% 62.9% 58.6%
University of Tennessee
1,125 19,255 22.8% 10.7% 57.2% 54.5%
Ball State 1,040 16,513 22.8% 8.5% 54.2% 43.7%
Northern Illinois
1,030 17,228 28.5% 19.6% 53.3% 38.7%
154College Results Online, 2009.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
College Algebra Course Redesign:UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
SUCCESS RATES
• Fall 1998• Fall 1999
• Fall 2000• Fall 2001• Fall 2002• Fall 2003• Fall 2004
• 47.1%• 40.6%
• 50.2%• 60.5%• 63.0%• 78.9%• 76.2% 155
???
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Also, totally eliminated black/white gap in course outcomes.
Same students.Same preparation.Different results.
???
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
And didn’t just close gaps in course outcomes.
In 2001, black freshmen at Alabama graduated at a rate 9 points below
white freshmen. By the class of 2006, black students were graduating at a rate 2 points HIGHER than white
students.
???
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Course redesign in Tennessee
With more than 40% of freshmen at four-year schools and nearly 80% of freshmen at two-year colleges in remediation, the Tennessee Board of Regents were early adopters of the
NCAT (National Center for Academic Transformation) course redesign model
Short, Paula and Treva Berryman (2012). ‘A System Approach to Learning Support Redesign in Tennessee.’ Presentation at the U.S. Education Delivery Institute network meeting, January 2012.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
SMART Math at Jackson State Community College
Redesigned Basic Mathematics, Elementary Algebra, and Intermediate Algebra
Used a mastery approach that allowed for progression at individual rates
Individual on-demand assistance and feedback
Technology-integrated instruction with custom textbooks
Short, Paula and Treva Berryman (2012). ‘A System Approach to Learning Support Redesign in Tennessee.’ Presentation at the U.S. Education Delivery Institute network meeting, January 2012.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
SMART Math at Jackson State Community College
Students eligible to enroll in college-level courses next term
Traditional
Sprin
g 08
Redesign Sp
ring 0
8
Redesign Fa
ll 08
Redesign Sp
ring 0
9
24% 22%
36%42%
Students receiving passing grade
Tradi-tional
Spring 08
Redesign Spring 08
Redesign Fall 08
Redesign Spring 09
41%
54% 57% 59%
Short, Paula and Treva Berryman (2012). ‘A System Approach to Learning Support Redesign in Tennessee.’ Presentation at the U.S. Education Delivery Institute network meeting, January 2012.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Math redesign at Cleveland State Community College
Before course redesign• Section size = 24• 55 sections (Fall/Spring)
– 45 by FT faculty– 10 by adjuncts
• Faculty load = 10 sections• Faculty cost = $256,275• Adjunct cost = $14,400• Total cost = $270,625
After course redesign• Section size = 18• 77 sections (Fall/Spring)
– 77 by FT faculty– 0 by adjuncts
• Faculty load = 20 sections• Faculty cost = $219,258• Adjunct cost = $0• Total cost = $219,258
Short, Paula and Treva Berryman (2012). ‘A System Approach to Learning Support Redesign in Tennessee.’ Presentation at the U.S. Education Delivery Institute network meeting, January 2012.
Savings = $51,418 or 19%
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Math redesign at Cleveland State Community College
Before Redesign After Redesign
50%
68%
Pass rates for Elementary Algebra
Before Redesign After Redesign
57%
74%
Pass rates for Intermediate Algebra
Engle, Jennifer, Joseph Yeado, Rima Brusi and Jose Cruz (2012). Replenishing Opportunity in America: The 2012 Midterm Report of Public Higher Education Systems in the Access to Success Network. Washington, DC: Education Trust, 2012.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
5. They don’t hesitate to demand, require.
n/a
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
A lot of institutions know what works. And more and more of
them are advising students to do those things.
But it turns out that “students don’t do optional.”
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
San Diego State University and
University of Houston
Similar Institutions Similar enrollment percentages of Latinos Similar SAT
165
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Different Results Over Time2002 Latino Graduation Rate
2006 Latino Graduation Rate
University of Houston
34.8% 41.1%
San Diego State
31.4% 54%
166
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
What do the folks at SDSU think made the difference?
1. Making services, supports more coherent.
2. Making what was optional, mandatory.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
6. They bring back the ones they lose.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
University of New Mexico
Median SAT: 1010% Pell: 31.4%White: 49.8%African American: 2.8%Latino: 33.6%American Indian: 6.6%Overall 6 year grad rate: 41.6%
169
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
The Graduation Project
Founder: David Stuart, Assoc Provost Insight: A lot of the students who leave
without a degree leave pretty close—and in good standing.
Core idea of project: Track them down and invite them back.
Criteria: 2.0 gpa or better, at least 98 credits Universe: 3000
170
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
• Used credit company to track them down• Offer:
– shortened (and free) application for re-admission, – degree summary showing exactly which courses
short, – priority enrollment in those courses, and – help with problems along the way.
– Result: Of those 3000, 1800 now have degrees and 59 have graduate degrees.
171
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
For Community College Version, See “Project Win-Win” at IHEP.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
In other words, what institutions do to help their students succeed matters. A lot.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST© 2011 The Education Trust
It’s really not about boldness of reform.It’s about intentionality and quality of execution.
© 2012 THE EDUCATION TRUST
Washington, D.C. Metro Detroit, MI
202/293-1217 734/619-8009
Download this presentation on our website
www.edtrust.org
Oakland, CA
510/465-6444